User talk:76.65.128.43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! ZappaOMati 06:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

CFDS[edit]

See my query here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
And here. (Sorry, I know it can be hard to track discussions on that page, so I'm just posting notices here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Replied -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your technical move request[edit]

It looks like opinions may differ on this, so I've opened a move discussion at Talk:The Return of Sherlock Holmes (TV)#Requested move. Feel free to expand your comment there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's already a disambiguation page, how would opinions differ? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Kyoto[edit]

I noticed that you brought up there being an RM for this move. Someone has also requested a technical move. I have not checked to see who or when, but one thing I often do is scan all the new RMs to see if they really need any discussion and convert them to TRs if they are clearly uncontroversial. In this case I am guessing that after the move request reached the wp:snow close stage someone added the TR. There never needs to be both, and the TR always takes precedence unless challenged, in which case it reverts back to the RM. Make sense? Apteva (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer someone snow the discussion instead of acting on a TR. I've seen TRs go through when there's been objections or other forms of non-assenting to the proposals, making a mucked up mess of things at RM. If I lodge an objection on technical grounds, then the TR will ensure to get the proper due care and attention, instead of a possible missed check of the talk page for open move discussions. TRs should never take precedence over the identical open requested move. (if the TR is not identical nor similar (ie. fix a typo, correct a capitalization, mostly unrelated to the open move request) then I can see how a TR can go through while a move request is open) Processing an identical TR over top of an open RM would be gaming the system. And violating WP:CONSENSUS seeking. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Not much chance of that happening. There is a huge backlog at RM, and the priority of all closers is to clean out that backlog, not check for RMs that can be speedy closed. TRs always take precedence. I have no idea why that should not be clear. It is the responsibility of the admin doing the move to check the talk page for any discussion before making the move, and if there is any reason to not make the move, they decline. We really do have a very orderly process here. What an RM is is a request for input. What a TR is is a notice that I require an admin to help make the move because I can not just click move, for example in the case of an IPuser. They differ only and solely on the basis of is it controversial, and nothing else. If it is not controversial, it is by definition a TR regardless if someone opens an RM or makes a TR, and I regularly move RMs to TRs when that happens. Just now someone objected to a TR, by simply and without comment moving it to the contested section, which is fine - no reason is needed. The proposer or anyone else has two choices - forget about the move or open an RM. Apteva (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am moving this discussion over to WT:RM since I'd like a second opinion on this TR priority. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
SDSS J1254+0846, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon species[edit]

{{talkback|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 11#Category:Pokémon species by type}} Or we can discuss here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG articles for deletion[edit]

Hey, thank you for notifying the video games wikiproject of articles for deletion, but there is no need. The project is sufficiently large enough to maintain a distinct page for all current AfDs, and does not wish to have a seperate notice for each one on the main talk page- with over 50,000 articles and files in its scope, that gets a bit tedious. Thanks! --PresN 15:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Though, they aren't AFDs, they're PRODs, does that page also list prods? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Second period, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Precocious editing[edit]

I just wanted to commend your willingness to jump right in and start getting involved with the more hardcore areas of Wikipedia like RM/TRM and AfD. It took me months before I began editing in the Wikispace but I can see it took you only an hour to dig right in. That's extremely rare for someone so new to the project and I think it shows initiative. For this reason and because I can see from your talk page that you've been forced to make a lot of requested "Articles for creation", I'd like to invite you to create a free account for yourself. The main reasons why this is helpful are summed up at Wikipedia:Why create an account?, and I can tell you personally that I find having an account to be quite helpful in my daily activities here at Wikipedia. You're of course free to do as you wish though and you're under no obligation to create one, but hopefully you'll find the information useful. Either way, welcome aboard and congratulations again on your remarkable learning curve! -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my IP rolls over every so often (dynamic IP address), so I've been here longer than a few weeks. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see. Well anyway you still do seem to be more than your average fly-by-night IP editor though, so do consider a full account if not now then perhaps at some point in the future. -Thibbs (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Puppeteer (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Category:Indian skeptics[edit]

Please revisit this discussion. The nominator's rationale has been thoroughly debunked with a large amount of clear proof, but you are still on record as supporting it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this "clear proof" business. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

National Pension Scheme[edit]

I would be interested to see if the discussion over at Talk:National_Pension_Scheme#Requested_move_2 has impacted your thoughts/support for this request. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Canada-athletics-bio-stub}}[edit]

Hi there, did you notice my comment at Template talk:Canada-athletics-bio-stub#Suggested move? Clearly no one feels strongly enough to support or oppose your proposal, but if it's to go through, there's the question of what should become of {{Canada-athletics-bio-stub}} in the future. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused[edit]

Since you participated in a relevant prior move discussion for Dazed and Confused, I hereby invite you to comment in the new discussion that I just opened.BarrelProof (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canada (colony) concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Canada (colony), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice [edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.  Paine  u/c 03:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)